CRUDEN v. NEALE 2N.C.

(1796) 2 SE 70 "Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed

by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent"

In accordance with Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters, (3 U.S. 54; 1

L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54).

"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction,

& a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with
other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor
substance, is foreclosed from creating & attaining parity with the
tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well
as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with
anything other than corporate, artificial persons & the contracts
between them.

Resident” means only a temporary place of living, and is for ​U.S. citizens​, not ​state
citizens​. A ​state citizen​ is individually sovereign. A ​state citizen​ is not subject to​state
and federal legislation. Income taxation is primarily based on your status as a 14th
Amendment ​U.S. citizen​.

"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar,
that we have in this country substantially two national governments​; one to be
maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be
maintained by Congress ​outside and independently of that instrument​, by
exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take
leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the
sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our
system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty
guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative
absolutism... It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a
government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgment in our
Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert
its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution."
--Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of Downes v.
Bidwell.
"Taxpayers are not [de jure] State Citizens." Belmont v. Town of Gulfport, 122 So.
10.

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United
States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the
former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

"The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee
an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the
regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United
States." W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180
U.S. 452

"Speeding, running stop signs, traveling without license plates, or registration

are not threats to the public safety, and thus are not arrestable offenses." Christy
v. Elliot, 216 I 131, 74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905-1910

"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or
penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."-
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

Article one section ten of the USA 1789/1791 constitution prohibits States from
using anything but actual gold and silver coin as tender and payment of debt. So
how do they tax you in Federal Reserve notes? Federal Reserve notes are defined
as o​ bligations​ in 18 USC 8. And 31 USC 3124 prohibits states from taxing federal
obligations except for corporations. So if a US citizen or resident alien can be
taxed in Federal Reserve notes, then they are a United States corporation/ U.S.
citizen. A State Citizen is not, and no unconstitutional tax can be levied against a
State Citizen. And congress has not authority over State Citizens. Since many
across this nation has figured out the citizenship fraud, and are correcting the
fraud via passport, the enemy is in panic. The IRS has the right to inquire about
taxes if you cannot prove State Citizenship.​ See..."​ Unless the defendant can
prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and
determine a tax liability." U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United
States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the
former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a
government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is
distinct from the others​, and each has citizens of it's own​..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the
State,..." "One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United
States".
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

"That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,..."

Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

"Taxpayers are not [de jure] State Citizens." Belmont v. Town of Gulfport, 122 So.
10.

​ itizen​' in the United States, is a

State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122: "the term 'c ​ nalogous
to the term `subject' in common law;​ the change of phrase has resulted ​from the
change in government."

State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122: "the term 'citizen' in the United States, is analogous
to the term `subject' in common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the
change in government."

Supreme Court: Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226:

"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few
rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of
individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to
being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which
relate to state citizenship."

Supreme Court: US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957:

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence
within the territorial boundaries of the United States."
The Amendment (14th) recognized that "an individual can be a Citizen of one of
the several states without being a citizen of the United States," (U.S. v. Anthony,
24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830), or, "a citizen of the United States withoutbeing a Citizen of
a state." (Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549
(1875)).

A more recent case is Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors, 221 A.2d 431 (1966) which
says: "Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United
States in order to be a citizen of his state." Citing U.S. v. Cruikshank, supra.

The courts presume you to be a federal citizen, without even telling you that there
are different classes of citizens. It is up to you dispute this. Use your passport
and the actual birth certificate. See...
"Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS
has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability." U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp.
179,182 (1982).

"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of
citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788
(1909)

"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are
distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different
from those which he has under the other".
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights

inherent in state citizenship".
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the

citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each
state as such".
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)
"Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are
classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual
entity"", Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773

"...the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from
state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment]."
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520

"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment...and
the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment...have been distinctly
held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States
guaranteed by the 14th Amendment...and in effect the same decision was made in
respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand
jury, contained in the 5th Amendment...and in respect of the right to be
confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment...it was held that the
indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury
guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens
of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We
conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not
a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the
14th Amendment."
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99

"The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee
an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the
regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United
States." W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180
U.S. 452

"A "US Citizen" upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in
"interstate commerce", as a "resident" does not have the common-law right to
travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states." Hendrick v. Maryland S.C.
Reporter's Rd. 610-625. (1914)

It's a VIOLATION of the 11th Amendment for a FOREIGN CITIZEN to INVOKE the
JUDICIAL POWER of the State.

Article XI.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in
law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of
another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

US citizens (FEDERAL CITIZENS) are FOREIGN to the several States and SUBJECTS
of the FEDERAL UNITED STATES/STATE of NEW COLUMBIA/DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.

Attorneys are considered FOREIGN AGENTS under the FOREIGN AGENTS

REGISTRATION ACT (FARA) and are SUBJECTS of the BAR ASSOCIATION.

Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People

– Supreme Court of the United States 1795

"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of

the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The
imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and
attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government,
as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other
than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them."

S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),

Supreme Court of the United States 1795 ----- (Let's not get all pissy over whether this
is an exact quote, read the rest of the cites below)

And,

"An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an
attorney or a witness".

(Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647)

Subject: Trinsey v. Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647: when you read it you will find that it is
THE case cited for FRCivP 12(b) (6).
Now, while what it says at 12(b) (6) is good, notice how I have highlighted some items
from the actual decision, it goes MUCH further than 12(b) (6) does and we should also.
Keep in mind the two Maxims in Law that are opposite sides of the same coin: Truth is
Expressed in the Form of an Affidavit, & An Unrebutted Affidavit stands as Truth in the
Matter.

Now, while keeping these in mind, think about when someone like an attorney for the
IRS comes forward and "testifies" about how you did such-and-such. Are they a
First-Hand-Witness, or simply a "Statement of Counsel in Brief or Argument?" Shut
them down! Hit them with Trinsey and get the "Judge" to take official Judicial Notice of
it. If the "Judge" does not sustain your object, you need to immediately file an oral
"Affidavit of Prejudice" against the "Judge" as he has shown his prejudice and then file
the same Affidavit in writing into the record with witnesses to the same. Once your
Affidavits are filed, get a record of what has been filed and show that you are the only
one who has actually introduced FACTS into the case and move for Summary
Judgment upon the Facts... while reminding the "Judge" that the ONLY thing he is to
consider is the FACTS of the case ON THE RECORD, that the opposing "counsel" has
only been "enlightening" to the Court, but not sufficient to rise to the level of FACT.

This applies both with Federal Rules of Evidence and State Rules of Evidence.... there
must be a competent first hand witness (a body). There has to be a real person making
the complaint and bringing evidence before the court. Corporations are paper and can't
testify.

"Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of

[a] case." United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed.
2d 752,

"Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held
to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting
statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their
appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt
whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to
conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted." Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12)
224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct. 463.

"No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to
regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel", Holt v. United
States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2,
"The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record
either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of
the power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the
citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial." Donnelly v. Dechristoforo,
1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting.

"Care has been taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man
whose character or whose word could be successfully impeached by any methods
known to the law. And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with
every means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and
search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest
the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare
statements of counsel. The lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth
and veracity un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory or
the impressions of any man called, cannot be successfully pointed out in this record."
Telephone Cases. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone
Company v. American Bell Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v..
Molecular Telephone Company, Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American
Bell Telephone Company, People's Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone
Company, Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,.
(PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778.

"Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or
for summary judgment," Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

"Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a

part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court" – Oklahoma
Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h).

Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. "Statements of counsel in brief or in
argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment." Pro Per and pro se litigants should therefore always
remember that the majority of the time, the motion to dismiss a case is only argued by
the opposing attorney, who is not allowed to testify on the facts of the case, the motion
to dismiss is never argued by the real party in interest.

"Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely
on for a summary determination." Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
Frunzar v. Allied Property and Casualty Ins. Co., (Iowa 1996)† 548 N.W.2d 880
Professional statements of litigants attorney are treated as affidavits, and attorney
making statements may be cross-examined regarding substance of statement. [And,
how many of those Ass-Holes have "first hand knowledge"? NONE!!!]

Porter v. Porter, (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ The practice of an attorney filing an
affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that client is not approved,
inasmuch as not only does the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a
position of witness thus compromising his role as advocate.

Deyo v. Detroit Creamery Co (Mich 1932) 241 N.W.2d 244 Statutes forbidding
administering of oath by attorney's in cases in which they may be engaged applies to
affidavits as well

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to
carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He
owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State,
since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His
rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the
organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in
accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself,
and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a
warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon
their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906).

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states: "No State shall pass any law impairing
the obligation of contracts." The individual's right to contract is unlimited and no State
may interfere with that right.

Very few Americans know that they have a fundamental choice: To live their lives and
conduct their businesses under common-law jurisdiction or under statutory jurisdiction.
Common Law is the law of the land, the law of the Constitution. Statutory law is
legislated law.

The IRS makes this distinction between the two kinds of law:
"1. Common law comprises the body of principles and rules of action relating to
government and security of persons and property which derive their authority solely
from usages and customs or from judgments and decrees of courts recognizing,
affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs.
2. Statutory law refers to laws enacted and established by a legislative body." IRS
Manual, page 5041.1 Section 222.1.

Much of the original U.S. common law has been codified in a single Federal statute, the
Uniform Commercial Code.

"The Code is complementary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except
where displaced by the code." UCC 1-103.6.

The UCC provides the mechanism for making the choice between common law
jurisdiction and statutory jurisdiction. It also states that the failure to make the choice
results in the loss of common law rights.

"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof,
causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." UCC 1-207.9.

"The Sufficiency of the Reservation - Any expression indicating an intention to reserve

rights, is sufficient, such as "without prejudice."" UCC 1-207.4.

The specific method for reserving your common law rights - for choosing to operate
under common law jurisdiction - is to write below your signature "Without Prejudice UCC
1-207." You could use this phrase on your driver's licence, on bank signature cards, and
on contracts.

FEDERAL JURISDICTION

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:

"Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever,
over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular
States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the
United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of
the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts,
magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings."

Very few Americans (including lawyers) know that federal legislative and territorial
jurisdiction is very limited. It is limited to the ten square miles of Washington, DC, certain
military bases where States have ceded jurisdiction, certain territories such as Puerto
Rico and Guam, and certain guano islands.

This information comes from a 29-page paper by Attorney Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. The
Supreme Court has stated:
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits
of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha v. U.S., 142 U.S., at
215 (1894).

Becraft cites twenty court cases confirming the territorial limitation of federal jurisdiction,
including:

U.S. v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir., 1975) - holding federal wiretap laws as
territorial.
Reyes v. Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C. Cir., 1973) - holding
administration of Social Security Act as territorial.
Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F. Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y., 1967) - holding securities
act as territorial.
GENERAL CASE LAW ON JURISDICTION

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F
2nd 906 at 910.

"It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime
in order to sustain a conviction therefor." U.S. v. Benson, 495 F.2d, at 481 (5th Cir.,
1974).

"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must
be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

"Where there is absence of proof of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial

proceedings are a nullity, and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no
justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." Thompson v Tolmie, 2
Pet. 157, 7 L. Ed. 381; and Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3 L. Ed. 471.

"The United States is entirely a creature of the Federal Constitution, its power and
authority has no other source and it can only act in accordance with all the limitations
imposed by the Constitution." Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
"The rights and liberties of the citizens of the United States are not protected by custom
and tradition alone, they are preserved from the encroachments of government by
express/enumerated provisions of the Federal Constitution." Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1,
1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).

"The prohibitions of the Federal Constitution are designed to apply to all branches of the
national government and cannot be nullified by the executive or by the executive and
the senate combined." Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making
or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

"Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot
by legislation alter the Constitution." Eisner v. McComber, 252 U.S. 189 at 207.